Saturday, July 21, 2007

I've made a number of documentaries about Cambodia. The first was Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia. It describes the American bombing that provided the catalyst for the rise of Pol Pot. What Nixon and Kissinger had started, Pol Pot completed -- CIA files alone leave no doubt of that. I offered Year Zero to PBS and took it to Washington. The PBS executives who saw it were shocked. They whispered among themselves. They asked me to wait outside. One of them finally emerged and said, "John, we admire your film. But we are disturbed that it says the United States prepared the way for Pol Pot."I said, "Do you dispute the evidence?" I had quoted a number of CIA documents. "Oh, no," he replied. "But we've decided to call in a journalistic adjudicator."Now the term "journalist adjudicator" might have been invented by George Orwell. In fact they managed to find one of only three journalists who had been invited to Cambodia by Pol Pot. And of course he turned his thumbs down on the film, and I never heard from PBS again. Year Zero was broadcast in some 60 countries and became one of the most watched documentaries in the world. It was never shown in the United States. Of the five films I have made on Cambodia, one of them was shown by WNET, the PBS station in New York. I believe it was shown at about one in the morning. On the basis of this single showing, when most people are asleep, it was awarded an Emmy. What marvelous irony. It was worthy of a prize but not an audience.Harold Pinter's subversive truth, I believe, was that he made the connection between imperialism and fascism, and described a battle for history that's almost never reported. This is the great silence of the media age. And this is the secret heart of propaganda today. A propaganda so vast in scope that I'm always astonished that so many Americans know and understand as much as they do. We are talking about a system, of course, not personalities. And yet, a great many people today think that the problem is George W. Bush and his gang. And yes, the Bush gang is extreme. But my experience is that they are no more than an extreme version of what has gone on before. In my lifetime, more wars have been started by liberal Democrats than by Republicans. Ignoring this truth is a guarantee that the propaganda system and the war-making system will continue. We've had a branch of the Democratic Party running Britain for the last 10 years. Blair, apparently a liberal, has taken Britain to war more times than any prime minister in the modern era. Yes, his current pal is George Bush, but his first love was Bill Clinton, the most violent president of the late 20th century. Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown is also a devotee of Clinton and Bush. The other day, Brown said, "The days of Britain having to apologize for the British Empire are over. We should celebrate."Like Blair, like Clinton, like Bush, Brown believes in the liberal truth that the battle for history has been won; that the millions who died in British-imposed famines in British imperial India will be forgotten -- like the millions who have died in the American Empire will be forgotten. And like Blair, his successor is confident that professional journalism is on his side. For most journalists, whether they realize it or not, are groomed to be tribunes of an ideology that regards itself as non-ideological, that presents itself as the natural center, the very fulcrum of modern life. This may very well be the most powerful and dangerous ideology we have ever known because it is open-ended. This is liberalism. I’m not denying the virtues of liberalism -- far from it. We are all beneficiaries of them. But if we deny its dangers, its open-ended project, and the all-consuming power of its propaganda, then we deny our right to true democracy, because liberalism and true democracy are not the same. Liberalism began as a preserve of the elite in the 19th century, and true democracy is never handed down by elites. It is always fought for and struggled for.A senior member of the antiwar coalition, United For Peace and Justice, said recently, and I quote her, "The Democrats are using the politics of reality." Her liberal historical reference point was Vietnam. She said that President Johnson began withdrawing troops from Vietnam after a Democratic Congress began to vote against the war. That's not what happened. The troops were withdrawn from Vietnam after four long years. And during that time the United States killed more people in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos with bombs than were killed in all the preceding years. And that’s what’s happening in Iraq. The bombing has doubled since last year, and this is not being reported. And who began this bombing? Bill Clinton began it. During the 1990s Clinton rained bombs on Iraq in what were euphemistically called the "no fly zones." At the same time he imposed a medieval siege called economic sanctions, killing as I’ve mentioned, perhaps a million people, including a documented 500,000 children. Almost none of this carnage was reported in the so-called mainstream media. Last year a study published by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health found that since the invasion of Iraq 655, 000 Iraqis had died as a direct result of the invasion. Official documents show that the Blair government knew this figure to be credible. In February, Les Roberts, the author of the report, said the figure was equal to the figure for deaths in the Fordham University study of the Rwandan genocide. The media response to Robert's shocking revelation was silence. What may well be the greatest episode of organized killing for a generation, in Harold Pinter's words, "Did not happen. It didn't matter."

The above, noted by Marcus, is from John Pilger's "The Invisible Government" (Dissident Voice). It's from a speech he gave at the Socialist Forum in June and, if I'm remembering right, two Fridays ago, Amy Goodman played some of it on WBAI. I'm not sure of the time (and wouldn't be if I wasn't rushing). I was just in town to speak and asked the taxi driver to flip to 99.5, it was after Democracy Now! and WBAI is in pledge drive till the end of the month (or almost the end). But if you go to the first or second hour after Democracy Now! ended (in the WBAI archives), you should be able to listen to a sample of the speech. (Which also means, since it is their pledge drive, the speech is probably available on disc via a pledge of a certain amount.)

Marcus noted Senator Crazy's remarks last week re: Cambodia (in the Senate Cloakroom) where he began LYING about Cambodia and proving just how insane John McCain is. Marcus asked if we could lead with that on Sunday (for "And the war drags on") and I don't want to hold it until Sunday because I will forget.

This facility, the National Police detention center in northwest Baghdad, was intended to house up to 300 inmates when it opened two years ago. Nearly 900 are now crammed inside -- an unwieldy mix of suspected insurgents, alleged criminals and apparent innocents.Other Iraqi detention facilities have seen a similar influx since the launch of the U.S.-led security crackdown in February.Partially treated wounds, skin diseases and grossly unsanitary conditions appear common here. So, too, is extortion by guards, say U.S. officials who serve as advisors to the Iraqi staff, but disclaim responsibility for the conditions inside."They're Iraqi government facilities. We work with the Iraqi government to get their facilities established. It's their responsibility to maintain the facilities, it's their responsibility to provide the guards," said a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad.

Actually, as long as the US occupies Iraq, it is the US responsibility -- morally and legally. The only thing that ends the legal responsibility is ending the illegal war and the illegal occupation. That "a senior U.S. military official" is so unaware of international law is as frightening as the conditions of the jails.

Funding the war is funding the killing and it's funding the crimes that go on every day and are greeted with shrugs -- like the "senior U.S. military official" who wants to claim what the jails are like in occupied Iraq are not a responsibility for the occupiers (that would be the US).

The State Department will fall far short of the 7,000 Iraqi refugees it had said it was prepared to accept by the end of September.A State Department official told McClatchy Newspapers this week that it plans to interview 4,000 potential Iraqi refugees by then.The State Department has said that helping Iraqi refugees -- particularly those who work with Americans -- remains a top priority.In April, the department approved one Iraqi refugee. It allowed one in May, as well.

7,000 is an appalling number to begin with. That the State Department can't even meet that number is a sign of how ineffective Condi and Bully Boy are.

One of the stories that's not been covered in a way that the point is getting through is how the US used Iraqis. I was speaking Thursday to a group and brought this up only to be greeted with "For real?"s. Yes, for real. (One student did know of it because his brother served in Iraq starting in April 2003. He was the only one who had heard of this.) The US military needed Iraqi support within Iraq. They needed interpreters (and, of course, they also needed spies). To recruit them, they promised big money (that never came) and that they would be first in line for US citizenship (in this country, they weren't promising to make Iraq a US colony).

When the Iraqis willing to help you are lied to, you better believe it further destroys your image. Fortunately for the White House, that's really not an issue now. Assisting with the war and the occupation now does not allow for easy re-entry. (A significant number of the externally displaced Iraqi refugees include those who assisted the US military and were not able to go to the US -- as promised -- and were not able to return to their own towns and cities due to the fact that they were seen as collaborators.)

That happened repeatedly, the promise and then the breaking of the promise. That broken promise is not a new feature of this illegal war; however, the fact that the 'cakewalk' has lasted so long means that there is a higher number of Iraqis who have been betrayed.

The White House and senior military officers vowed Friday that an important assessment on progress in Iraq would be delivered by the Sept. 15 deadline set by Congress, even if it takes weeks longer to compile a more complete judgment on the current troop increase.A day after the No. 2 American commander in Iraq said it would take "at least until November" to complete a full assessment, Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said neither the White House nor military officers in Baghdad were asking for more time before reporting to Congress on progress in Iraq.

Of course the September report will be given. It's mandated. That's not the issue. The issue is the White House has launched an offensive to mitigate the results of the report and laid the groundwork for arguing (in September) that no one can really know the 'success' level until November. The same tired arguments put forward this past week about 'more time' being needed will be put forward in November. It's a variation on the 'turned corner' that never got turned but was always promised. The illegal war is lost and what they're doing now is trying to extend it. No one has claimed that the blessed David will not give his report in September. That's not what Operation Push-Back has been about. It's been about the administration lowering expectations and laying the groundwork for the argument to come: We need to wait until November! If they get away with that, no doubt, by the first week of October, the next push-back will be sold. That may include Bully Boy announced 10,000 or more US troops being sent into Iraq in October and arguing that this is a fine tuning and he needs more time to see how it works.

The American people decided in the United States and they long ago said, "You've had more than enough time." It's only Congressional leadership that refuses to step up and say the same.(A proposed partial withdrawal does not say, "Time's up." It says, "Keep playing your illegal war but use less US lives.")

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that some of today's violence includes: "15 civilians killed and 10 were wounded when American air planes bombed Al Husseiniyah district north Baghdad around 3,00 am." Three in the morning.

AP reports that Hillary Clinton has responded to the administration's efforts to slime her using McCarthy tactics:

Later in the day, in a conference call with reporters, Clinton called Edelman's argument "offensive and totally inappropriate," and said it was more evidence that smart military planning is being subverted by misguided White House strategies."I don't want to wake up and be surprised once again that what any of us would have assumed was absolutely accepted has been derailed or stonewalled by the White House because it doesn't fit the ideological or political agenda," she said.She was joined in the conference call by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the 2004 Democratic nominee. The two plan legislation forcing the Pentagon to report to Congress about withdrawal plans.Clinton said she and Kerry were "shocked by the timeworn tactic of once again impugning the patriotism of any of us who raise serious questions" about the Iraq war. Kerry accused the Bush administration of making "planning a dirty word and an alien concept."Clinton first raised the issue of troop withdrawal planning in May, pointing out that whenever U.S. forces leave, it will be no simple task to transport the people, equipment and vehicles out of Iraq, possibly through hostile territory.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Friday, July 20. 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the death toll mounts, a military judge sends the message that even if you're convicted in the killing of an innocent Iraqi you won't get any prison time, and the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk is Operation Push-Back.

Starting with war resisters. Ian Munro (Australia's The Age) explores the "estimated 250" US service members who have self-checked out and moved to Canada and zooms in on Dean Walcott and Phillip McDowell. Munro writes, "Mr Walcott's life was up-ended in 2004 at a military hospital in Germany when burns survivors from the Mosul mess tent bombing were shipped in." Like Walcott, McDowell served in Iraq before deciding to self-check out. Munro quotes McDowell stating, "I believed everything the Government told us about weapons of mass destruction, that there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I was aware of the international opposition to going in, but growing up I always trusted my government" and reports, "By the end of his tour he saw the war as wrong, illegal and counterproductive, and was disturbed by the treatment of some prisoners. But he thought he was clear by the middle of last year when his enlistment expired. Then the army called him back. With his family's support, he and his partner Jamine took the Canada option in Ocotber." Jeffry House tells Munro that he estimates the number of war resisters in Canada to be 250 and, "Some don't want to go through the war resisters because they are a political group. Some people want to make the point about their concern but don't want to be part of a campaign." House represents many including Kyle Snyder, Joshua Key and Jeremy Hinzman. Lee Zaslofsky of the War Resisters Support Campaign tells his story, how he self-checked during Vietnam and moved to Canada -- where he's lived ever since and happily (to refute some of the nonsense offered earlier this week by a spokesperson for a group that does not represent self-checkouts) and he estimates there are hundreds who have self-checked out from today's illegal war and moved to Canada.

Yesterday, Elaine (Like Maria Said Paz) noted that alleged 'withdrawals' pushed by Democratic leadership in the US Congress some how tend to factor in leaving troops in northern Iraq and the effects the Kurdish separatist movement has on neighboring Turkey which has its own Kurdish separatist movement. Today on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman* and Juan Gonzales addressed the issue with the independent journalist Scott Peterson (Peterson reports for The Christian Science Monitor which actually is an independent publication and structured as one). As noted before, Turkey has an upcoming election and the tensions flaring between the regions has only increased -- whether or not for electoral gain is for someone else to determine. The region of northern Iraq has its own elections coming up which will determine its autonomy and with very little coverage from Western media, Kurdish flags have been planeted, families run off and those belonging to religious minorities have been either run off from the region or killed. Turkey alleges and identifies the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party) as a terrorist organization and has argued that it is granted harbor in northern Iraq. Mortars have been exchanged and, on at least one occassion, Turkish troops have recently entered northern Iraq. From the broadcast:

JUAN GONZALEZ: Scott Peterson, this allegation by Turkey that the United States is indirectly assisting the PKK, is there any evidence of that, given the fact, obviously, that the -- isn't the PKK really a more, historically more of a leftwing insurgency, a secular insurgency that would be unlikely to be supported by the United States?

SCOTT PETERSON: Well, the PKK really disappeared as an organization for the past five or six years. In 1999, its leader, Abdullah Ocalan, was captured by the Turks, in fact. And in his first appearance in court, Ochalan said that the PKK had made a number of mistakes during the fifteen-year separatist war, that they should now try and work within the state and with state structures to find recognition of Kurdish rights and recognition of Kurdish culture. And he also said that they're no longer fighting for a separate Kurdish state. So those were all quite important changes that really kind of took the wind out of the PKK sails for many years. What we've seen in the last year or two now is a surge of PKK activity in terms of attacks -- certainly in terms of attacks that the government attributes to the PKK, and those are both in Ankara, others also in Istanbul, some targeting civilians and many targeting also soldiers, especially in Kurdish areas in southeast Turkey. Now, of course, the issue of who is supporting the PKK is a very thorny one, because, of course, the PKK remains on the list of terrorist groups, as officially designated by the US State Department. The United States has identified and chosen a special envoy specifically for countering the PKK. That's the title of Joe Ralston, General Joe Ralston. And so -- and, of course, the US denies that it is giving any support to the PKK, but from the Turkish point of view they say, Wait a minute, there are American forces who control all of Iraq, and therefore since the PKK has bases in northern Iraq, that means that by definition there are -- you know, that the US is somehow involved, if nothing else, in turning a blind eye. And you've also got apparently safe haven given to the PKK by Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq. And the reason for these latest accusations or allegations is, just in the past ten days or so there was a press conference that was purported to be from four PKK members who had fled northern Iraq. They appeared in Ankara at a press conference wearing masks and saying, we have just fled, that PKK militants are leaving their bases, expecting a Turkish invasion, and that also they had witnessed, they say, American troops actually offloading weapons at PKK bases for the PKK. And I have spoken to senior Turkish police officers who feel that the entire story is concocted, and I'm sure that would be the American view, too, but, again, it really does raise a lot of popular questions in the minds of Turks.

Elections in Turkey take place Sunday and for more on that you can read Scott Horton's latest piece in today's Christian Science Monitor. In addition, Katharine Kendrick (Turkish Daily News) reports that political parties in Turkey have forgotten to court one group: "recent Turkish citizens." Some context re: the conflict between northern Iraq and Turkey. The US administration is attempting to lay the groundwork for a potential attack on Iran with a lot of loosely sourced claims which -- at best -- if true would only demonstrate that some Iranians have involvement in Iraq. The US administration uses that unproven link to argue that the Iranian government, therefore, must be assisting. In Bite Back In Your Own Ass news, Today's Zaman reports that not only has Turkey's Foreign Minister Abdulla Gul declared that the US is arming the PKK in Turkey but also: "The US Department of Defense has launched an investigation into US-registered weapons sent to the Iraqi army ending up in the hands [of] the outlawed Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) based in northern Iraq."

In addition, the paper reports, "Former members of the PKK escaping from mountain camps in northern Iraq recently gave testimony in which they told securities authorities and prosecutors they had seen US trucks delivering arms to PKK camps." By the US administration's 'logic' with regards to Iran, Turkey should be drawing up their battle plans. Reuters reports that Turkey was shelling northern Iraq. Meanwhile the Turkish Daily News reports conflicts between Turkey and Austria after Austraia refused to arrest "Ali Riza Altun, a founding member and the chief financial operator of the PKK, listed as a terrorist group by Turkey, the European Union and the United States" when he surfaced in Austria this month before moving on to northern Iraq.

Turning to England, the United Kingdom's Military of Defence announced: "It is with profound sadness that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the deaths of one serviceman from 504 Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force and two servicemen from 1 Squadron RAF Regiment on Thursday 19th July 2007. They were killed in an indirect fire attack on the Contingency Operating Base in Basra, Iraq." Robin Stringer (Bloomberg News) noted that British forces are "the second-largest contingent of the American-led coalition in Iraq." ICCC lists the total number of British troops who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war at 162. ITV News reports that 126 of the deaths are classified as having "died in action" while the BBC reports the three deaths come after the announcement that "british troops in Iraq will be cut to 5,000 by the end of 2007." Michael Evans and Fiona Hamilton (Times of London) observe that the three deaths come "ten days after three British soldiers were killed in the same area of southern Iraq" Earlier this week, Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) reported, on a new study by the Royal Stastistical Society that "found the death rate of British troops has now surpassed that of Americans, following a sustained upsurge of violence in the southern city of Basra."

Turning to the United States, today on KPFK's Uprising, Sonali Kolhatkar spke with Erik Leaver of IPS (Institute for Policy Studies) on the topic of empire, Iraq and more topics addressed in the new report [PDF format warning] "Just Security." With regards to Iraq, the first step, stressed repeatedly, is getting all foreign troops out of Iraq. Kolhatkar brought up the demonizing the administration is attempting to do with regards to US Senator Hillary Clinton. As The Chicago Tribune reports: "Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, accused Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) of aiding the enemy by calling for contingency plans for a troop pullout. 'Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq,' Edelman wrote in reply to Clinton's May inquiry. Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's letter 'outrageous'." The demonization of Clinton for reqeusting information on contingency plans (which do already exist) is part of a full out assault by the administration, a push-back effort attempting to resell the illegal war long after the majority of Americans have turned against it and are calling for a withdrawal from Iraq.

That's why, yesterday, US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, did a song and dance (via video link) for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Wally ("THIS JUST IN! THAT'S A CROCK!") and Cedric ("It's a Crock") covered it in their joint-post. Crocker was selling the 'fear' because the administration knows to get what they want, honesty doesn't work; however, if they can scare the American public, they might stand a shot. Starting with the Crock which existed to sell the fear (as did all parts of the marketing). Reneee Schoof (McClatchy Newspapers) reports US Senator Richard Lugar asked, "Are you planning for an eventual change of mission or redeployment of American forces in Iraq?" But Crocker refused to admit a Plan B existed or was being created. Thom Shanker and David S. Cloud (New York Times) report that Crock said the benchmarks weren't being met and probably wouldn't. Cloud's whines were laughable since the US administration created the benchmark talk long before Congress even considered legislation on it. But with more bad news coming, they needed to stall with something. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) would be reporting today, "A committee directed by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and President Bush to accelerate the transfer of security responsibility to Iraq's army and police has warned that Iraq is lagging in a number of categories. The quarterly report, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, says the Finance Ministry is blocking the Iraqi military from spending $660 million to build a logistical network; that militias are an obstacle to handing over to Iraqis responsibility for security in three mainly Shiite Muslim provinces; and that competition among rival security organizations has prevented the country from settling on a national security structure."

None dare call it progress. Which is why the big talking point is "Forget September, We Need To Wait Until November." As Kat noted last night, the new 'deadline' is supposed to November. Barbara Slavin's "General: September too soon to assess Iraq" (USA Today) noted that "the number two" (in Iraq), Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, was leading that pushback. Shanker and Sanger (New York Times) report, "Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters that while he would provide the mid-September assessment of the new military strategy that Congress has required, it would take 'at least until November' to judge with confidence whether the strategy was working."

To really make the push, Bully Boy left DC and the national press corps hoping to yet again get soft press from local outlets. James Gerstenzang (Los Angeles Times) reports the stop yesterday was Nashville to the always hyper-enthused audience of a local Chamber of Commerce, "Such visits draw little national attention, but the out-of-town stops gain extensive local coverage sought by the White House to counter the steady beat of the Iraq war on news pages, websites, television and radio. And they provide a backdrop of a White House seeking, city by city, to portray the president as focused on the breadth of his job and not just the war."

The pushback comes as Nouri al-Maliki's promise that Iraqi troops would be ready to take over responsibilities in Iraq is revealed to be just one more bad sales pitch. CBS and AP report Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser, did everything but sing Don Henley's "Not Enough Love In The World" as he declared that promise was no more: "We had hopes and intentions to take over security in all provinces and command of all army divisions before the end of the year. But there are difficulties and challenges that appeared along the way, in arming, equipping, recruiting and training our armed forces."

Al-Rubaie droned on about how difficult it was "to predict a certain time." A difficulty al-Maliki wasn't bothered by in April. And the endless, illegal war that doesn't result in the puppet or his masters getting upset has now claimed the lives of 52 US service members this month and the lives of 3631 US service members since the start of the illegal war (ICCC). The number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war gets closer to one million but no reason for a puppet government, hidden away in the Green Zone and protected and flattered by foreign forces and government, to care too much.

In the real world . . .

Bombings?Jenan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala mortar attack that injured eleven. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing that injured a police officer. DPA reports, "An Iraqi civilian was killed in a US helicopter attack in Mosul . . . The Iraqi civilian was killed and five others wounded Friday morning when a US helicopter bombed a residential area in Mosul" and two of the injured were children while two more women.

Shootings?

Jenan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person was shot dead in an attack on a car in Baghdad (three were wounded) and notes 2 more shot dead in Al Muqdaya suburb and 2 women shot dead "in Nawfal" and that an attack in Al Wajehia has left numerous people displaced and at least 5 dead -- Jenan also notes that on Wednesday "gunmen attacked Waheda Abd Al Muhsan Member of Salahudding governorate council. The gunmen shot her convoy when she was going to Tikret."

Turning to legal news. Yesterday, we noted that Trey A. Corrales and Christopher P. Shore were each charged with the murder of an Iraqi civilian on or around June 23rd. Today, AP reports that Albert Corrales Sr. has stated his son is innocent (though "he hadn't talked to his 34-year-old son about the death") and quotes him stating, "I think that it's wrong because the people he supposedly shot, they were terrorists and he was under orders to clean them out, and he did." In other father and son legal news, Michael Vick (19-year-old) and James Vick (44-year-old) have both been charged. Lindsay Wilcox (KLTV, Tyler, TX) reports that the father's been held by authorities since May while the son "was arrested at DFW Airport [Dallas, TX] on Tuesday after returning home from Iraq" and that the two men are charged in the sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl and a nine-year-old girl who had been foster children in the Vick home during 2003 and 2004. Cindy Mallette (Tyler Morning Telegraph) spoke with Sgt. Wendell Wilcher of the Anderson county's sheriff's department who stated that "the Army released Michael Vick from his Iraq duties after the sherrif's department obtained a warrant for his arrest. He said the Army is considering Vick's status and may discharge him at some point in the future." Paul Stone (The Palestine Herald) also spoke with Wilcher who has been interviewing other children who stayed with the Vicks and states there will be more names added: "There's definitely going to be more than two. We may have a considerable amount of children. It's hard to say." AP notes the bail for each man is set at $300,000 and that Michael Vick is "assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington." On Wednesday, marine Trent Thomas was found guilty in the death of Hashim Ibrahim Awad who was dragged from his home, bound and murdered. Thomas was convicted of kidnapping and conspiracy to murder by a jury of his military peers. Although he could have been sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole, the military judge instead decided murder, lying, and more was no big deal. AP reports Trent Thomas' 'punishment' is to be discharged from the military and face a reduction in pay. And? That's it. No prison time for the man convicted by his peers in the murder of an innocenct civilian.

[C.I. note: Amy Goodman. Not "Gonzales." I don't know where my mind was. Mike caught that and pointed it out. Those who already wrote checks for wedding gifts, don't need to rip them in half. Simply send them to Democracy Now!]

When the left overs of a deadly, costly and undemocratic illegal war built on lies no longer result in smiles around the dinner table, what's a body to do? If you're in the White House, reach for a box of Illegal War Helper.

Yesterday, the US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, did a song and dance (via video link) for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Wally ("THIS JUST IN! THAT'S A CROCK!") and Cedric ("It's a Crock") covered it in their joint-post. It's actually part of a push-back by the adminstration to re-sell the illegal war, a multi-part marketing scheme that also involves pushing back the evaluation date for the surge and attacking politicians with the sort of scare tactics that harken back to the days of McCarthy.

Are you planning for an eventual change of mission or redeployment of American forces in Iraq?The Indiana senator, who's called for planning ahead for a withdrawal so that it won't be done poorly, said there'd been reports that the Bush administration had pressed officials to abandon any such planning.Crocker said he knew of no efforts to create a Plan B.

Crock stuck with that throughout. Thom Shanker and David S. Cloud (New York Times) report that Crock said the benchmarks weren't being met and probably wouldn't. They leave out the reptition of 'the fear' which is apparently like really bad b.o. permeating Iraq and Crock wants to tag it with, "Never let them see you sweat."

Though Cloud whined about the benchmarks (more convincing coming from someone not a part of the administration since the administration set the benchmarks) were an unfair way to evaluate progress. He no doubt knew what Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) would be reporting today, something far more damaging than the administration's cheerful "assessment" last week:

A committee directed by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and President Bush to accelerate the transfer of security responsibility to Iraq's army and police has warned that Iraq is lagging in a number of categories.The quarterly report, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, says the Finance Ministry is blocking the Iraqi military from spending $660 million to build a logistical network; that militias are an obstacle to handing over to Iraqis responsibility for security in three mainly Shiite Muslim provinces; and that competition among rival security organizations has prevented the country from settling on a national security structure."I agree it is mixed results," said Iraqi national security advisor Mowaffak Rubaie. "We are behind schedule, but we made good progress."A foreign advisor to the Iraqi government agreed that progress was being made.Iraqi forces are now responsible for security in seven out of 18 provinces.The findings by Iraqi, U.S. Embassy and U.S. military officials were the latest report card on Iraq's progress.

Another aspect of the plan to re-sell the illegal war is to push the date back. "Wait for September, wait for David, give David time, it's not fair to David!" David, David, David, the administration's whined making us all feel like Alvy Singer in Annie Hall when Annie can't shut up about her new *professor*. David is Petreaus who is supposed to give Congress a report on 'progress' and he was also cited repeatedly by Senate Republicans during this week's slumber party.

September's less than a full month away and nothing's improving (it never does) but polling demonstrates the US public wants action (and indicates they aren't seeing it from the Democratic leadership in Congress) with a majority favoring a timeline for withdrawal. So the administration is now scrambling to gain some more time. As Kat noted last night, the new 'deadline' is supposed to November. Barbara Slavin's "General: September too soon to assess Iraq" (USA Today) noted that "the number two" (in Iraq), Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, was leading that pushback. Shanker and Sanger (New York Times) report:

Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters that while he would provide the mid-September assessment of the new military strategy that Congress has required, it would take "at least until November" to judge with confidence whether the strategy was working.

The administration is like a lazy student forever requesting yet another extension -- but homework projects rarely result in deaths.

As usual when the news is bad, Bully Boy leaves DC, hoping to circumvent the national press for what's perceived as a softer local press that will be less likely to ask questions and will do nothing but include -- without comment -- a clip of some absurd statement he makes with no comment on the local evening news and call it 'news' as they shuffle it between their local crime blotter summary that also attempts to pass itself off as news. James Gerstenzang (Los Angeles Times) reports the stop yesterday was Nashville to the always hyper-enthused audience of a local Chamber of Commerce:

Such visits draw little national attention, but the out-of-town stops gain extensive local coverage sought by the White House to counter the steady beat of the Iraq war on news pages, websites, television and radio. And they provide a backdrop of a White House seeking, city by city, to portray the president as focused on the breadth of his job and not just the war.

Not content with selling fear, attempting to push back the due date and courting soft press, the administration hit a new low (even for them). The Chicago Tribune reports another step in Illegal War Helper:

Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, accused Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) of aiding the enemy by calling for contingency plans for a troop pullout. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq," Edelman wrote in reply to Clinton's May inquiry. Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's letter "outrageous."

Though the last seven years of the Bully Boy's occupation of the White House has modified Jefferson Airplane's "We Can Be Together" -- "We are all the outlaws in the eyes" of the administration, who knew we'd find ourselves asking the musical question, "What if . . . Hillary were one of us . . ."? But such is the reality of Illegal War Helper and the desperation factor in the administration -- everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman (most of America) can be tarred and feather, slimed and muddied by the administration. This time it's Hillary. Sending out a message to the majority of the American people that anyone who opposes the Bully Boy's endless illegal war (the majority of Americans) is an enemy of the state.

It is with profound sadness that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the deaths of one serviceman from 504 Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force and two servicemen from 1 Squadron RAF Regiment on Thursday 19th July 2007.They were killed in an indirect fire attack on the Contingency Operating Base in Basra, Iraq.

Of those, 126 died in action. The rest of the deaths were accidents or linked to natural causes, illness, remain unexplained, or are still under investigation.[. . .]The deaths follow two military fatalities on July 7 when Lance Corporal Ryan Francis, 23, of 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh, and Corporal Christopher Read, 22, of 158 Provost Company, 3rd Regiment Royal Military Police were killed.Lnc Cpl Francis from Llanelli, south Wales was killed by an improvised explosive devise in north Basra during a large-scale operation to arrest individuals suspected of attacks.Cpl Read, originally from Poole in Dorset, was fatally injured by small arms fire while on his way back from the same operation.

Meanwhile, the ICCC total for British troops is 159 and Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) reports, "British troops serving in Iraq are being killed at a proportionally greater rate then their American allies for the first time since the start of the war. The stark finding marks a 'watershed' for British involvement in the conflict, it is claimed, and had led to calls for the Government to set an immediate timetable for withdrawal from the war-torn country. Prof Sheila Bird, the vice-president of the Royal Stastistical Society, analysed British and American fatalities from May 2006 to June 2007, and found the death rate of British troops has now surpassed that of Americans, following a sustained upsurge of violence in the southern city of Basra."

Again, 3 have been announced dead in Basra, the total has risen to 162.

Meanwhile Iraq's Parliament is on hold. Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was forced out as Speaker and this remains an issue. CBS and AP report that al-Mashhadani's party, Iraqi Accordance Party is boycotting which may end if al-Mashhadani is returned to his post long enough to retire while al-Sadr's bloc was deciding whether or not to end their boycott until the mosque in Samarra (damaged in Feb. 2006 as well as a few months back) was repaired.In the end, none of the above mattered. Parliament did not meet. "Very bizarrely," Jaime Tarabay (NPR) explained today, "they decided to cancel the session because there was no electricity in the assembly building" -- no lights, no air conditioning.

al-Mashhadani is now back in and apparently per the conditions cited. The Post notes a voice disputing that it's a temporary return:

Jubouri, the Accordance Front spokesman, disputed Khuzai's account, saying that the other political blocs had agreed to reinstate Mashhadani permanently."He's back as head of the parliament, and nobody put any kind of conditions on that," Jubouri said. Parliament voted to remove Mashhadani in June after one of his bodyguards was accused of roughing up another lawmaker.

The Times notes another Sunni bloc that that remains missing:

Still, six cabinet ministers from the main Sunni political bloc, the Iraqi Consensus Front, continue to boycott meetings to protest the handling of accusations that one of the six, Culture Minister Asad al-Hashimi, masterminded the attempted assassination of another politician. Six other ministers from Mr. Sadr’s bloc have also left the cabinet.

The oil law is particularly controversial, with some critics claiming it is unnecessarily generous to multinational companies and others claiming that it devolves too much power away from the central government to northern Iraq’s Kurdistan regional government.

The desire to push through the theft of Iraqi oil is so great (al-Maliki knows that's what the US administration is waiting on) that any significant bloc in the parliament can write their own check -- have a member re-instated, have charges dropped, you name it -- just by the threat of boycotting at a time when the puppet needs to show results before he's pulled from the power seat he was installed in.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Jimmy Massey, a founding member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), says active-duty soldiers and their families are turning against the Iraq war as more and more learn the nation was duped into the war by George W. Bush’s lies about nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. IVAW is working hard to speed that process with an outreach program that included a bus tour to military bases across the Southeast, Massey told the World in a phone interview. Several IVAW members were arrested when they attempted to enter Fort Benning in Georgia to meet with soldiers July 1, Massey said. Awaiting trial on charges of criminal trespass are Liam Madden, Nathan Lewis and Adam Koresh. Madden and Lewis were arrested while wearing their IVAW T-shirts. Koresh then changed into a plain T-shirt, but he was arrested too. Two days earlier, they and two other IVAW members were detained at Fort Jackson under similar circumstances but were released without charges. Massey was a witness to the arrests. He is a 12-year veteran of the Marine Corps, a combat infantryman in the initial attack on Iraq four years ago. Now 100 percent disabled, he lives on disability payments from the Veterans Administration. Most of every VA check, he said, goes to support IVAW.

WHAT WILL it take to end the occupation?I THINK it will take much more pressure at home and also within the rank and file of the U.S. military in Iraq.We have to take advantage of the cracks that are opening within the establishment to campaign vocally and publicly against the war, involving greater numbers of the people and communities affected by the war at home--which has gone hand in hand with the war against the Iraqi people.We need to put pressure on both the Democrats and Republicans, and not simply collapse into a lobbying wing for the Democratic Party.There will be immense pressure on the antiwar movement to give up its independence and get behind whatever candidate the Democrats put forward in 2008, no matter what their limitations. People will tell us this is how we can be relevant.I think the antiwar movement would be irrelevant, though, if we did this. We’ll be much more effective if we articulate our own principles and demands--including immediate withdrawal--and fight for them.And we also need to defend and support those soldiers who in greater numbers are speaking out, refusing service, declaring conscientious objection and, at great personal risk, organizing against the war.In particular, I think we all need to help build Iraq Veterans Against the War, which is playing a vital role in building a movement of Iraq vets and also active-duty troops who can bring an end to this occupation.

We noted the interview earlier this week when it was in the (US) Socialist Worker and Z-Net is now running it as well. Samantha pulled that section and requested it be noted. What's it going to take to end the illegal war?

They're just there to try and make the people free,But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.Just more blood-letting and misery and tearsThat this poor country's known for the last twenty years,And the war drags on.-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3611. Tonight? 3628. The Senate did nothing this week. They 'took it to the mat' on something that wouldn't even end the illegal war. It would prolong it. It would deceive some (a great many, judging by the cheerleading) long enough for the peace movement to have to yet again regroup and figure out how to come back. "Combat troops" -- that was what they were selling. Permanent bases? Didn't touch on it. All troops out? Didn't touch on it. The theft of Iraqi oil? Ditto. The right of Iraqis to self-determination? Well if you can stretch scolding Iraqis over the fact that the US installed puppet government (from a US installed system) then they had that covered.

As Kat's noted tonight, the new marketing scheme from the White House is that the September wait isn't enough time. Imagine that. The White House that sold a turned corner just around the corner for years has set a deadline and now wants to ignore it? Barbara Slavin's "General: September too soon to assess Iraq" (USA Today) addresses the latest box of Illegal War Helper.

What's it going to take to end the illegal war? People growing the hell up.

That won't happen by The Huffington Post running attacks on Cindy Sheehan.

Cindy Sheehan's announced she might challenge Nancy Pelosi for her Congressional seat and it's time for the idiots to emerge. That they would is not surprising, that Arianna's going to allow them to at her site is. Arianna knows (or should) full well that her 'friends' will abandon her the moment she takes a stand for something they do not agree with. More than anyone, she should be able to relate to Cindy Sheehan and the journey Sheehan's now on.

But it's time for the Hurricane Clones. First up, noted by Keesha (who knows we won't link to it, it's trash) is Julie Bergman Sender. JBS -- empahsis on the latter two -- wants to appeal to Cindy not to run in the name of "sisterhood." I know Demi Moore, she's a wonderful and highly underrated actress. That's why she was able to make something strong out of the crap that was G.I. Jane.

JBS preaches 'sisterhood' today to warn Cindy Sheehan against running for the seat currently occupied by Pelosi. Where was that alleged 'sisterhood' during the creation of G.I. Jane? No where to be found. That was the usual masculinist crap that stunk up movie screens throughout the 80s. JBS is really proud of the 'sisterhood' of G.I. Jane and there is no 'sisterhood.'

Demi is all alone in that film and her biggest opponent, her most powerful one, is played by . . . a woman. It's the good woman vs. the bad woman. It's Fatal Attraction in camo. It's not 'sisterhood' and having put her name to that film, JBS is the last to ever lecture another woman about 'sisterhood.' When those backlash films of the 80s were all the rage, it was embarrassing. But G.I. Jane's not from that period. It comes a decade after. Long after, in fact, Susan Faludi and others had called that crap out.

So JBS needs to couch her attack on Cindy (and it is an attack) on something other than 'sisterhood' because no woman that knows JBS will do anything but howl with laugher. (Actually, a number of women and men are currently laughing at JBS.)

JBS is part of the Hurrican Clones -- those who sell themselves to the Democratic Party.

Cindy is warned not to run because Nancy Pelosi is the 1st woman to be Speaker of the House. JBS is obviously very worried about Cindy Sheehan's chances of winning the race that she feels the need to trot out the 'women have to stick together' line when it's never applied to her professional life. She's one of the Take Back America crew, a Hurricane Clone dispatched to do the bidding that her mistress won't. JBS may score some ponts online but her name was crap before I worked the phones today.

This selective 'sisterhood' rears its ugly head from time to time and the results are never anything a feminist can take pride in. We could, after all, have Elizabeth Holtzman in Congress today. She was the best candidate. She wasn't tied up in any scandals due to her husband. But the selective 'sisterhood' crowd rolled out their campaign against her to back the laughable Geraldine Ferraro (who performed poorly in a debate with George H.W. Bush -- how bad do you have to be for that! -- in 1984). Now Ferraro took her marbles and went home. Holtzman? She's still fighting. She's still trying to make this country the best it can be. But back then, the alleged 'sisterhood' was telling Holtzman to drop out, telling her that it was "Gerri"'s race (to lose). They sullied Holtzman's name, trashed her image and anything else they could think of when she wouldn't drop out of the race. Holtzman would have been an asset back in Congress. She's remained one out of it. But the anti-democracy crowd that thinks feminism translates as the occasional bit done for reproductive rights (usually with the weakest organizations around) didn't care about the most qualified or the fact that every American has a right to run for office. They just cared that their designated 'girl' (unlike Ferraro, Holtzman is a woman) get in.

Pelosi, the faux sisterhood tells us, is a step up for women. True or false, she's got her place in the history book. There's really no need for them to wet their panties over the thought that Cindy might run against her.

They should concern themselves with helping Nancy Pelosi overcome her own negatives. Nancy Pelosi wouldn't meet with Tina Richards. That detail falls out of the selective 'sisterhood.'Most details do. That's because the selective 'sisterhood' is never about feminism and most who take to dispensing the call couldn't pass for a feminist standing next to Bobby Riggs.

Feminism is supposed to be about supporting equality. But there is no support from JBS for Cindy Sheehan to run for Congress. Suddenly, the idea of equality goes out the window and we've got a system where some people have their destinies and no one can challenge them.

That's crap. And JBS is full of it. Howls of laughter greeted her plea in the name of 'sisterhood.' It's not playing in the entertainment world and it won't.

JBS needs to understand that democracy, true democracy, means all seats are up for grabs. She futher needs to grasp that feminism is not telling a woman, any woman, to take a rest because she feels a political race shouldn't be a 'race' it should be a coronation.

Nancy Pelosi has done a very poor job as Speaker of the House. That's in who she's put in charge, that's in the leadership she has offered. People can lie and spin it all the way they want but Congress' approval ratings are now lower than when the Republicans were recently in charge. That is reality.

Reality is that Pelosi boxed herself in with a huge tactical error when she announced (last year) that impeachment was "off the table." She never should have said it and it's pig headed for her not to take it back. The words Pelosi is searching for are, "I made a mistake. Obviously Congress represents the people and should this be action the people feel is needed we will fulfill our obligations to be representatives by pursuing it."

JBS is making her own tactical error. Her plan is to force Cindy out of running. That worked once before when Cindy was talked out of running against Dianne Feinstein. JBS obviously didn't grasp that when Cindy Sheehan made her announcement in May, she was beyond pissed. She's not going to be intimidated into anything, she's not going to go along to get along.

She's tried "Big Picturing" and has seen where that leads. Cindy may or may not run. Only she will make that decision. But for a JBS to try to hide behind feminism as the excuse to launch the "Cindy Don't Run" campaign is just laughable. Again, her history is known in the entertainment field and all her little scribble produced was laughter. (JBS tries to get in a slam at the peace movement and noting how they 'used' Cindy. The real peace movement didn't. The peace movement that subverts themselves to the Democratic Party -- the way JBS is doing -- did use Sheehan.)

JBS will not be voting in the Pelosi race no matter who runs. JBS doesn't live in the Bay Area. JBS needs to butt the hell out of a race she won't even be allowed to vote in. She can give from her small pond monies to Pelosi all she wants, but no one in the Bay Area needs to hear what an outsider thinks about a local race.

JBS needs to drop the 'sisterhood' pose and stick to the little she knows: producing some more tits and ass films where you pit woman against woman or maybe another periodic feature that's a nightmare for every actor and actress working on it. But don't take up the banner of 'sisterhood' this late in the game.

Pelosi will win or lose based on the votes she gets in the Bay Area. JBS doesn't live in it, doesn't vote in it, needs to take her crap about 'sisterhood' and run with it somewhere else.

JBS laughably writes (to the tune of "The Greatest Love of All"?): "Nancy Pelosi is not perfect. But she is bold and passionate and I believe committed to ending this war; and committed to stripping the Bush administration and its agents-of-destruction of the power to continue to wage this war with a blank check and the empty threat that disagreeing with staying the course in Iraq is not supportive of our troops." A) That's for her constituents to decide, not an outsider. B) As someone present when Pelosi spoke last year trying to finesse the issue of "permanent bases," you're tongue lathering of Pelosi goes beyond hype. Pelosi offered that nothing is "permanent." No, nothing is. Everything eventually breaks down to dust.

Pelosi's actions in 2006 and 2007 suggest she doesn't want to hand Bully Boy a blank check . . . without at least having overdraft protection. She's done nothing to say she wants to end the illegal war. Saying that she doesn't support a measure is either craven or a sign of how ineffectual she is because, as Speaker, she could have prevented any measure she didn't like from reaching the floor.

Evaulating that action (and others) and whether or not to support her is something those who have her name on their ballot list will decided. JBS needs to stick to her own Congressional district because no one needs to hear from her about who should run and who shouldn't.

JBS is a lot like the cowards who turned on MLK. That falls through the cracks when 'history' is told. But when MLK didn't dance the way the 'liberals' liked, they turned on him too. When he took on the illegal war, he made enemies that still exist to this day. Oh, they're happy to note his death each year and work in an "I Have a Dream" ref but, and you saw this play out recently with the death of Coretta Scott King which got less press than the death of a playwright, they will not forgive him and they will not honor him for taking on the real structures in this country.To twist the knife a little further, they will go out of their way to ignore the passing of the woman who kept the dream alive, carried both his torch and her own.

JBS tosses out that Cindy's going to find herself called a "left wing crazy." You know what? All the greats are derided widely. Comes with trying to break down the barriers. JBS wouldn't know about that because she didn't break any, she rode them happily in the center or accepted them -- one of the weakest and meekest of all. That's what she really fears about Cindy. Cindy can't be corralled, can't be controlled, can't be ordered. Cindy Sheehan is an independent agent.

She, and only she, will decide whether or not to run. The voters of the district, and only those voters, will decide whether or not she deserves to serve in Congress. But it's a measure of Cindy's power that the serfs and slaves come forward to start the attacks. If Cindy Sheehan should be at all insulted it's that the errand girl from the grocer has been dispatched to do someone higher's bidding (nod to Coppola's great film -- a great film, so you know JBS wasn't anywhere near it -- and, FYI, "someone higher" is not a reference to Arianna). JBS is out and about to test the waters. Can more slam pieces on Cindy be written? Can they get away with it?

The answer is up to you. The left can get serious or they can play stupid and let the war drag on. In a democracy, every one who wants to run for an office can. That's Ralph Nader, that's Cindy Sheehan, that's even a wack job like JBS. No candidate is 'entitled' to a vote. They earn it. Some on the left, who would actually be voting in a Sheehan and Pelosi match up, may not feel Sheehan's their choice. That's their right. That's their power. But for someone who won't even be voting in the race to tell a potential candidate that they shouldn't run isn't democracy.

It is cowardice. It is duplicity. It is shameful. It is in no way sisterhood. It is absolutely undemocratic.

In this community, members in that area and out of that voting area support Cindy Sheehan's right to run. It's a real shame that some supposed/alleged independent media wants to send/teach another message which is elections are not about giving the voters choices, they are about eliminating competition. Tom Hayden, in his Pasedena address (broadcast Tuesday on KPFK's Uprising), revealed what this sort of strategizing leads to. Pombo in the US Congress. The State Senate didn't want him in the State House and figured he would be less harmful in DC so they gerrymandered his district to make sure he wouldn't stand a shot at the state legislature so he ends up in the US Congress for over a decade.. It's time for people to stop thinking they can ease the way and start trusting the people. It's beyond time for alleged Democrats (JBS is a Democrat) to stop telling people not to run and to stop attempting to circumvent democracy.

JBS rose to her low-medium level despite setbacks and barriers. It's really sad that she wants to turn around and create some for another woman. And, no, that is not sisterhood.

And this sort of crap, this rushing in to insist "Don't run" and warn that 'some' will call you a "left wing crazy" if you do, isn't about ending the war or about giving the people the right to decide for themselves. It's about protecting elected Democrats. And as long as they're given protection, as long as their asses are protected, they will continue to play their little con game on the American people.

So what's going to end the illegal war? Growing the hell up. As Howard Zinn rightly noted, we are citizens not politicians. Add to that, we are not a built in cheering section. When we are willing to conduct ourselves like grown ups (not fans) and use our own individual power, we will be able to end the illegal war.

Thursday, July 19, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces the deaths of more service members, funding the war is funding the killing and more.

Starting with war resistance. Joshua Key began serving in Iraq in April 2003. Approximately six and half months later, he made the decision to self-checkout. In Michelle Mason's brilliant documentary Breaking Ranks, Key (and others) share some of what we they saw in the illegal war. The section with Key in the film that may stand out most is when explains coming upon "heads and bodies. And American troops in the middle of them saying 'we lost it.' . . . I seen two American soldiers kicking the head around like a soccer ball." Key has also told his story in this year's The Deserter's Tale which has consistently earned strong reviews. In the book, Key charts his life growing up in Oklahoma, his time in Iraq, his decision to self-checkout and the decision for his family (Joshua and Brandi Key and their four children) to relocate to Canada. Among the many incidents he witnessed in Iraq was one on the way out of al-Habbaniyah where they passed many onlookers including an unarmed man sitting in a chair.

As we approached, I saw the seated man raise his leg to bare the sole of his foot at us, a sign of disrespect. We all knew that this was the Iraqi equivalent of the middle finger -- a clear "f**k you." As I watched, Sergeant Gurillo -- perched atop an APC just ten feet ahead of mine -- put the man in the sights of his semiautomatic rifle. Gurillo's rifle had a lever allowing it to be used as a machine gun or for firing single bursts, and Gurillo -- a short stocky guy who was known to us all for getting love letters from both his wife and his girlfriend -- must have switched the level to single-shot mode. He tipped the barrel of the rifle down ever so slightly, squeezed the trigger, and shot the man squarely in the foot.

That incident is one of many recounted (p. 140 for that one) throughout the book. It's actually one of the milder incidents in the book. But someone offers the equivalent of the middle finger and they get shot. All of the incidents Key observed and took part in, as well as the illegal nature of the war itself, resulted in Key's conclusion that he had no choice but to say no to illegal war, From page 99:

My own moral judgment was disintegrating under the pressure of being a soldier, feeling vulnerable and having no clear enemy to kill in Iraq. We were encouraged to beat up on the enemy, we picked our fights with civilians who were powerless to resist. We knew that we would not have to account for our actions. Because we were fearful, sleep-deprived, and jacked up on caffeine, adrenaline, and testoserone, and because our officers constantly reminded us that all Iraqis were our enemies, civilians included, it was tempting to steal, no big deal to punch, and easy to kill. We were Americans in Iraq and we could do anything we wanted to do.

If he had stayed silent, if he'd refused to take a stand, who knows how many media outlets would hail Key as a hero? Saying no to an illegal war is heroic. As Dave Lindorff (CounterPunch) observes, "It is not that these soldiers are evil. They are victims who have been assigned an evil job. Some in the military -- people with extreme courage -- have resisted, have spoken out, have risked court martials, have refused orders, have deserted, but it is too much to ask most men and women in such a situation to be similarly courageous." Which is why those who do take a stand need to be supported and applauded.

The war is illegal. War crimes are being committed. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today that US marine Trent Thomas was found guilty in the April 26, 2006 death of Hashim Ibrahim Awad: "Awad was dragged from his home, shot and then planted with a weapon to make it appear he was a militant planning an attack. Five other service-members have pleaded guilty in the case." Reuters noted that Thomas was "convicted of kidnapping and conspiracy to murder". Elaine (Like Maria Said Paz) addressed this yesterday and noted that, throughout the case, the defense maintained that Awad was a "legitimate target" which shows no remorse or accountability. CNN reminds that Thomas had originally pleaded guilty in a plea agreement before changing his mind and withdrawing his plea and that he will be sentenced today. In February, Dave Hasemyer and Rick Rogers (San Diego Union-Tribune) reported on Thomas' announcement ("stunned the judge"0 that in the midst of what would have been his sentencing hearing, Thomas declared he was withdrawing his guilty plea after having agreed to it three weeks prior. When he entered the guilty plea in January, Thomas told the judge that his own actions had disgraced the military, admitted they planted a weapon on Awad after killing him, and more. But, Hasemyer and Rogers reported, Thomas withdrew the plea at the start of February with the claim that the orders were lawful. Lawful? In January,AP reported on the hearing where Thomas entered the original guilty plea and had Thomas testifying that Melson J. "Bacos started to spaz out, to freak out. He started saying we were going to get caught" and that "Squad leader Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III then called in over the radio that they had spotted a man digging a hole, Thomas said. Someone fired a shot, then he and others in the squad opened fire." At this point Awad was already dragged from his home, already bound, already had a shovel and a gun planted near him -- lawful orders? Lawful orders don't require any of that and they certainly don't require cover stories -- spazzing out or not. Allison Hoffman (AP) reports that one of the defense arguments this week was that Thomas may have "a traumatic brain injury [which] impeded the Marine's ability to say no when his squad leader ordered him to snatch the man from his home in Anbar province". To be clear, that man was not Awad -- when they could not find that man, they went after the grandfather Awad. Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times) explains that Thomas was convicted by a jury composed "of three officers and six enlisted personnel" who "deliberated six hours before reaching its verdict."

Goodman also noted, "Two US soldiers have been charged with murdering an Iraqi civlian in Kirkuk last month. A lieutenant colonel has been relieved of command in connection with the case." CBS and AP identify Michael Browder (Lt. Col.) as the commander who has been "relieved of his command . . . although he is not a suspect and has not been charged, the military said" and identified the two charged as Sgt. 1st Class Trey A. Corrales and Spc. Christopher P. Shore. Browder is not a suspect but the US military press release is not blowing kisses and bearing hugs, noting Browder "was relieved by Maj. Gen Benjamin R. Mixon, commander, Multi-National Division -- North and Task for Lighning, based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding this incident and due to a lack of confidence in his ability to command effectively. The alleged murder was committed by Soldiers under Browder's command." The statement notes that the death in question took place ("on or about") June 23rd "in the vicinity of Kirkuk". Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) reports, "The two men, who are based at Schofield Barracks in Oahu, Hawaii, were stationed near Kirkuk, an oil-rich city that has seen increasing violence and heightened tensions between ethnic groups. Military officials said the murder probe was launched based on information provided by other U.S. soldiers." Al Jazeera notes that charges against two US soldiers for murdering Iraqis were announced last month (and like Trent Thomas' crime, the two are accused of planting weapons to excuse the murders): "Sergeant Michael Hnsley and Specialist Jorge Sandoval were charged with the murder of three Iraqi nationals in three separate incidents . . . between April and June near the town of Iskandiriya".

Staying with war crimes, Tuesday, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted the deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh of Reuters last week had resulted in the "news agency . . . calling for a thorough and objective investigation into the U.S. military action last week that left two of its Iraqi staff members dead. . . . Reuters announced on Monday that it had recovered two cameras that were being used by Noor-Eldeen. Photos on the cameras show no evidence of the firefight described by the U.S. military. Reuters editor-in-chief David Schlesinger said: 'Our preliminary investigation raises real questions about whether there was fighting at the time the two men were killed." Eye witnesses last week stated there was no exchange of gun fire going on when the Reuters team arrived. A US air strike killed the two journalists. Today, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) explored the attacks on journalists in Iraq -- the deaths and being held captive by the US military -- with Scott Horton who spoke specifically of AP's Bilal Hussein who has been imprisoned by the US military since April 12, 2006. "He was grabbed in Ramadi by a [US] patrol. The initial announcement by the Baghdad command was that he was caught red-handed in some sort of action. Of course, I interviewed some of the people involved in detaining him. They told me that ws a complete lie, that they had been sent out on a mission to get him and that the instructions had come way, way up the chain of command. In fact, the implication being that it hadn't been decided in Baghdad. It had been decided in the Pentagon, in Washington." From the broadcast:

AMY GOODMAN: You referred to the US cameraman. This is the case that you seriously investigated. In fact, didn't you represent him, the CBS cameraman? SCOTT HORTON: The CBS cameraman, that's right. AMY GOODMAN: Explain his case, to give us some insight. He has since been released. SCOTT HORTON: He was released one week before Bilal Hussein was arrested. In fact, we think there's some connection between these two events. But he had been taking pictures of an attack on an American convoy that occurred in Mosul in the north of Iraq, and he was shot as he did this. CBS was told in the first couple of hours after the event that he was going to be released, and then he continued to be held. And he kept being moved around. And we learned that the center of decision-making had passed out of Iraq and was being taken in the Pentagon, in Washington. And in the Pentagon and Washington, unnamed senior press spokesmen, we believe an assistant secretary of defense, were telling reporters, off the record and not for attribution, that he had been found with photographs of four separate incidents of attacks on Americans at the time of the attack. And when we got to the end of the case and the trial, we discovered that was a conscious lie. Absolutely not the case. But it was reported, by the way, on CBS on continuous feed for thirty-six -- excuse me, on CNN on continuous feed for thirty-six hours, as well as on FOX News. Neither of them ever corrected the false statements that were put out. JUAN GONZALEZ: What is the impact on the journalists who are in Iraq when you have situations like this of the military just grabbing people and holding them indefinitely without charges? SCOTT HORTON: Well, we have -- I mean, we need to start with the fact that we have more than 110 journalists at this point who have been killed in Iraq. That's twice the number who were killed in World War II. The number of journalists who have been arrested is now into the thousands. Most of those arrests are simply for establishing identity, and they are resolved in a period of four to six hours, but many of them have gone on for weeks and indeed months, and it is -- you know, it creates continuous pressure on the journalists. But the most disturbing thing here is a tendency on the part of the US military to view these journalists as, quote, "the enemy." And back three months ago, we actually got to see some classified operational security briefing materials that were prepared by the Department of Defense, in which they labeled journalists in a category together with al-Qaeda and drug dealers as potential enemy, to be treated and viewed as such. That leads to people being killed, by the way.

Staying on 'detentions.' Baghdad Observer is one of two blogs McClatchy Newspapers provides that cover Iraq. Leila Fadel ("Baghdad bureau chief") writes at Baghdad Observer. Tuesday, she wrote of returning to Baghdad (from Beirut) when two people were not present. First, "One person was missing. One of our senior drivers, an elegant man and former pilot, hasn't been to work in weeks. His neighborhood has deteriorated as Sunni insurgents and the Shiite Mahdi Army, radical cleric Muqtada Sadr's militia, fight for control of the area. He hasn't stepped foot outside his home, afraid that he will be killed. Instead his 22-year-old son is sleeping at the hotel and working in his place." Second, "Hussein isn't here either. Our Iraqi reporter is in Basra visiting his father. The man was detained in May by the U.S. military. We weren't told why. I had been working to get him released and one U.S. military official promised me his papers were being processed for release. On my break in Beirut, I got an e-mail from the bureau. He had been transferred to Camp Bucca in Basra. No release in sight, no answers about why he is in detention."

Staying on the violence, Inside Iraq is a blog done by McClatchy Newspapers' Iraqi journalists. Yesterday, in "One Question," a taxi ride experience was shared where the cab driver informed the journalist of his life since the start of the illegal war -- a missile resulted in a 4-year-old daughter who can't hear or speak, the driver's three brothers are dead, thugs moved into the neighborhood and his family had to give up their home, etc. leading the journalist to note: "We have more than 100000 US soldiers in Iraq and about 300000 Iraqi security forces. What are they doing? Can Mr. Bush or our Prime Minister Mr. Nouri Al Maliki answer my question?" "Not Enough" went up today and tells the story of two young children ("one still a baby running around bare footed on the lawn with his milk bottle in his hand, his sister chasing him with a big fluffy monster making monster sounds") playing in their yard when a bomb went off in the neighborhood resulting in shattered glass, the "two children, cut up, barely alive".

At the Times of London, Deboarah Haynes writes about her life as embed in Inside Iraq which might better be called Escorted Through Iraq. On July 14th, she wrote of accompanying the US military "across the dusty farmland of Arab Jabour, south of Baghdad" and found explosive devices littering the grounds which caused her to note that, since she "had no night-vision goggles," she had to trail closely behind the US soldier ahead of her. She frets over that but somehow forgets that most Iraqis will not have a US military escort in crossing the terrain. A similar myopia occurs as she writes of riding around "in up-armoured Humvees" ("nerve-wracking") while wearing "bulky body armour" and her fretting and free association never seems the least bit aware that she's several times more protected than is the average Iraqi. Reality comes out inadvertantly, seeping through the Noblesse Blondige attitude. Dr. Susan Rosenthal (CounterPunch) notes the dissociation going on in Iraq, in the military and in the media, "The barbarism of the Iraq war is creating mass dissociation in Iraq and America. Iraqis are going out of their minds with suffering. So are their tormentors, the American soldiers who are themselves tormented by what they have seen and done. Ordinary Americans must also dissociate in order to live 'normal' lives while a horrific war looms menacingly in the background. Such dissociation provides temporary comfort, while allowing the war to continue. The media encourages mass dissociation, presenting santized coverage of the war and sedating commentary that drips with lies."

Meanwhile, Mohammed A. Salih (IPS) reports the death of 19-year-old Sahwbo Rauf Ali who was murdered by her husband and several of his peers (two of which have British citizenship) in an "honor killing" which are "numerous . . . in the Kurdish region each year" and that the province of Sulaimaniya has had 24 reported honor killings with arrests "made in only five of these cases." As Salih notes, not all honor killings are reported or tracked and some women are encouraged to kill themselves.

Funding the war is funding the killing. Which is why non-cheerleaders aren't doing cartwheels and splits over the Senate Democrats sleep-over. Joshua Frank (CounterPunch) notes, "Not only were the Democrats' please to set a timetable for withdraw fully pathetic, so too was their moral indignation. . . . The Democrats don't really want to end the war despite their veneer of opposition. If they desired to end the war they would have halted its funding long ago." It's why Dr. Susan Rosenthal (CounterPunch) explains, "The Democrats consistently betray the anti-war movement, and liberal leaders of the social movements tail the Democrats. The recent vote to bring most American combat troops home next April is just another sham. All troops must come home now, combat and occupation forces, because Iraq belongs to Iraqis. Delaying the pullout only compounds the misery and provides politicians with enough time to change their minds." Pham Binh (Dissident Voice) calls out the nonsense as well noting the now failed Levin-Reed measure "would not end the war, close the permanent bases the Pentagon is building in Iraq, or get any troops out of harms way. I've read the text of the doomed amendment. It would require some unstated number of troops to be withdrawn, starting within four months of the bill's passage and ending by April 30, 2008." Norman Solomon (Common Dreams) notes the nonsense as well, "It was a chilling moment on a split-screen history. While the Senate debated the Iraq war on Tuesday night, a long-dead senator again renounced a chronic lie about congressional options and presidential powers" -- Wayne Morse featured in a clip of War Made Easy in a CBS Face The Nation appearance responding to Peter Lisagor's assertion that "the Constitution gives to the president of the United States the sole responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy."

"Couldn't be more wrong," Morse shot back. "You couldn't make a more unsound legal statement than the one you have just made. This is the promulgation of an old fallacy that foreign policy belongs to the president of the United States. That's nonsense." Lisagor sounded a bit exasperated: "To whom does it belong, then, Senator?" Again, Morse didn't hesitate. "It belongs to the American people," the senator fired back. And he added: "What I'm saying is -- under our Constitution all the president is, is the administrator of the people's foreign policy, those are his prerogatives, and I'm pleading that the American people be given the facts about foreign policy --" "You know, Senator, that the American people cannot formulate and execute foreign policy --" "Why do you say that? Why, you're a man of little faith in democracy if you make that kind of comment," Morse retorted. "I have complete faith in the ability of the American people to follow the facts if you'll give them. And my charge against my government is we're not giving the American people the facts."

The film in question is War Made Easy which uses Solomon's book of the same title as the spring board for a riveting documentary. As Cindy Sheehan (AfterDowningStreet) maintains, "It is my belief that for all of human history, we have been giving 'war a chance' and it has never worked. There has never been a 'war to end all wars.' No matter how much BushCo blather, peace cannot be spread by the use of force and democracy cannot be forced on a people at the end of a M-16. Congressional Democrats are busy throwing up smokescreens . . . or bones . . . to their 'anti-war' left by their meaningless bills after they gave George 120 billion more dollars to wage these wars of aggression and potentially invade Iran. As one of my peace idols, John Lennon said let's 'give peace a chance'." Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan is taking part in the Journey for Humanity and Accountability and more information on that is available at Camp Casey Pease Institute.

Bombings?

Reuters notes the bombing of a "minaret" (think column or tower) on a Baghdad Sunni mosque (which will no doubt lead to response bombings), a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 people and a mortar attack in Baghdad that claimed 1 life (seven more injured).

Shootings?

Reuters notes that an Iraqi soldier was shot dead in a home invasion in Hawija

Corpses?

Reuters notes 8 corpses were discovered in Mosul and the corpse of Lt. Col. Salam Shanoun was discovered along with the corpses of his 5 bodyguards following yesterday's kidnapping.

Today, the US military announced: "Four Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter were killed when an improvised explosive device detonated near their patrol during combat operations in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital July 18." And [PDF format warning] they announced: "A Task Force Marne Soldier was killed by small arms fire July 19 near Rushdi Mullah."

The ICCC total number of US service members killed in the illegal war since it started is currently 3628 with 49 for the month.

Meanwhile, the ICCC total for British troops is 159 and Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) reports, "British troops serving in Iraq are being killed at a proportionally greater rate then their American allies for the first time since the start of the war. The stark finding marks a 'watershed' for British involvement in the conflict, it is claimed, and had led to calls for the Government to set an immediate timetable for withdrawal from the war-torn country. Prof Sheila Bird, the vice-president of the Royal Stastistical Society, analysed British and American fatalities from May 2006 to June 2007, and found the death rate of British troops has now surpassed that of Americans, following a sustained upsurge of violence in the southern city of Basra."

This summer, Tina Richards' Grassroots America and Iraq Veterans Against the War are launching the campaign Funding the War is Killing the Troops. As Pham Binh (Dissident Voice) notes IVAW's membership is growing. And the new CBS News-New York Times polldemonstrates (yet again) that the public and the illegal war have parted. Support is not coming back for it. 61% of respondents stating Congress should only fund the illegal war if it has a timetable for withdrawal and only 28% believe that Congress should continue funding regardless. 74% of respondents say the illegal war is going badly, 25% live in the land of delusion and say it's going "well." Currently 8% of respondents are saying, "Block all funding." By refuting the lies of US Senator Carl Levin and others, the Funding the War is Killing the Troops campaign can make that 8% number soar much higher.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.